On 15 Jul 2008 at 13:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:and how is that different from today's situation where they aren't told at all? in other words, they already learned to live with that risk. if you tell them about a security bug, they will build that knowledge into their risk assessment process (which is what security is all about in the end). anything you omit will skew their decision making process (in particular, expose them to exploits if they fail to apply a fix because they make a bad judgement call). in other words, you should not be worrying about people not learning about all security fixes, they already know it's not possible to provide such information. however sharing your knowledge that you do have will *help* them because 1. they can know for sure it's something important to apply (no need to use their limited human resources to make that judgement), 2. they can spend more of their resources on analyzing the *other* unmarked fixes. overall this can only improve everyone's security. what you're afraid of is that people will take your 'we mark security fixes we learn about' as 'we mark ALL security fixes that are such'. well, make that very clear in a public document (Documentation/SecurityBugs is a good place) and that's it, people will know you're doing a best effort disclosure and not more. cheers, PaX Team --
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 05/37] dccp: Cleanup routines for feature negotiation |
| Lennert Buytenhek | [PATCH 16/39] mv643xx_eth: get rid of ETH_/ethernet_/eth_ prefixes |
